Replies

woodpusher: "The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation.
It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen.
Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121." "

Actually, in Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court did not magically "change" anything.
The court acknowledged that tomatoes are biologically fruits, but went with the common, ordinary definitions of fruits & vegetables by which most people consider tomatoes the latter.

woodpusher: "I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God.
You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers."

All your distinctions boil down to this: you consider the Supreme Court final authority on everything you agree with, of no authority regarding anything where you disagree.

woodpusher: "Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied.
I have never before heard of articles studying. "

Obviously you need new glasses, ones with no blind spots.
Here you even quoted me correctly, but then responded inappropriately:

"the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution. "

woodpusher: "What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789.
Not thirteen, but ELEVEN.
Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind.
How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?"

The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.
Indeed, on these threads we post informally about "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation, but technically, that's not what happened.
There were no secession conventions, no votes to secede, no "Declarations of Secession" or "Reasons for Secession" documents.

Instead, each state convention voted to ratify the new Constitution and then the old Articles of Confederation Congress voted to abolish itself.
So the Union itself never ceased to exist, only its form of government changed.
As for those states which delayed ratification, the Constitution did not require their validation.
Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.

woodpusher: "1788 or 1789 is irrelevant.
The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).
The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states.
That is history."

In 1776 Congress declared the United Colonies to be the independent united States of America.
Congress immediately began work on the United States Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
Over the years various forms of government have come & gone, new territories admitted as states, some states split into two or more, etc., but the Union itself has remained both perpetual and indestructible.
That is history.

On a side note, since you are apparently brand new to Free Republic, I'll give you one pass (only) for misappropriate use of the N-word -- "Nazi".
By long standing Free Republic tradition & acknowledged rule, the word "Nazi", when used outside actual historical contexts, implies:

The user admits losing the argument and now has only insults to hurl.
The user was educated, trained or brainwashed by politically correct liberals in how to shut down arguments when all else fails.
The user has nothing serious going on between his ears.
The user is not worthy of participating in Free Republic threads.

woodpusher: "When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776."

The Articles of Confederation were called "perpetual", not "indestructible, indissoluble".
So the status of Vermont on any particular date had no effect on the perpetual Union.
The fact is at the time, state & territory boundaries were sometimes both ill-defined and fluid, but none of that changed the perpetual United States Union.

woodpusher: "Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up.
It is an amusing habit of yours.
Come on self-proclaimed student of history.
Do try to keep up."

You sound like a typical Democrat, projecting your own mental state onto others.

woodpusher: "Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge.
And yet, you worship that crap.
Are you a card-carrying Nazi? "

Now you've been warned about using the N-word inappropriately on Free Republic.
If your weak brain cannot control its innate urges to act like a woke-liberal, calling whatever you disagree with "Nazi", your welcome here will quickly expire.

woodpusher: "I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support.
You complain that the quotes are unidentified.
The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal."

And with such total BS words you expose your true nature as a propagandist & liar.
Apparently, there's nothing serious going on between your ears.

Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.

As the great Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again. Just making crap up. When faced with actual history, you just make crap up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island

Nearly a dozen conventions failed that had been called in Rhode Island to ratify the constitution, often by wide margins; in one instance, 92 percent of the delegates voted against ratification.

As for secession, the other eleven states seceded from the existing government and union and formed a new constitutional government with eleven members.

The old government and union had only two widely seperated members left, and it was dissolved. RI and NC were not then members of the United States.

Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,

Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:

But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.

Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:

My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island

Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:

I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?

Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our consti6tuents who are dissatisfied with it....

Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:

I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...
But to return to my argument. It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.

Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:

There are two states not in the union; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen will then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitutyion; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.

How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?"

The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.

When faced with the history of Vermont seceding and becoming a free and independent state via successful revolution, you just mindlessly repeat your mantra of mutual consent. A successful revolution is not mutual consent.

It is not just my opinion that Vermont joined the Union as a free and independent State, and that they achieved their free and sovereign status by successful revolution, the it is opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 US 593 (1933). You just make crap up and repeat it as a mantra.

U.S. Supreme Court
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
Vermont v. New Hampshire
No. 2, Original
Argued April 20, 21, 1933
Decided May 29, 1933
...
289 U. S. 597
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original suit brought by the State of Vermont December 8, 1915, for the determination of the boundary line between that state and the State of New Hampshire. By the amended bill of complaint, Vermont alleged that the boundary is "the thread of the channel" of the Connecticut River for its entire course, except for that part from the northerly limits of the town of Vernon, Vermont, south to the Massachusetts line where it "is the west bank of Connecticut River at low water mark." In the original bill of complaint, there was an alternative
289 U. S. 596
claim that, if this Court should be of the opinion that the boundary is not the thread, but is "the west bank of the Connecticut River," then
"such line is the westerly edge of the waters of the Connecticut River at its average and mean stage during the entire year without reference to the extraordinary freshets or extreme droughts."
New Hampshire, by its amended answer, asserts that the boundary is "at the top or westerly margin of the westerly bank of the Connecticut River and the east branch thereof."
Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the channel was based upon the following propositions: township grants made by the Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, by royal authority, between 1741 and 1764, on the west side of the Connecticut River in the territory now Vermont, were bounded by the river, which was nontidal, and carried title to its thread by virtue of the common law of England; an order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, fixing the boundary between the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire at the "western banks of the River Connecticut," thus including the territory now Vermont in the Province of New York, was nullified by the successful revolution of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants; hence the eastern boundary of the revolutionary State of Vermont was the same as the eastern limits of the township grants -- namely, the thread of the river; Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state with her boundaries those established by her revolution. Her eastern boundary was therefore the thread of the Connecticut River.
The Special Master sustained all these contentions except the last one. With respect to it, he found that Vermont had, by resolution of her Legislature of February 22, 1782, relinquished any claim to jurisdiction east of the west side of the river at low water mark, in conformity
289 U. S. 597
to a Congressional resolution of August 20, 21, 1781, prescribing terms upon which Congress would consider the admission of Vermont to the Union. In addition to the findings already indicated, the Special Master also concluded that the order of the King-in-Council of July 20, 1764, even if not rendered ineffective by the revolution of Vermont, was not intended to recognize any rights of New Hampshire west of the west side of the river at low water; that Vermont's claim of a boundary at the thread of the river would be defeated by her acquiescence in New Hampshire's exercise of dominion over the waters of the river even if it had not been relinquished by acceptance of the resolutions of Congress of August, 1781, and finally that, by practical construction of the two states by long usage and acquiescence, the boundary of Vermont was fixed at the low water mark on the west side of the river.
Accordingly, the Special Master found that:
"The eastern boundary of the State of Vermont upon her admission to the Union was that stated in the resolutions of Congress of August 20, and 21, 1781, and in the resolution of the Vermont Legislature of February 22, 1782, and this I find to be the low water mark on the west side of the Connecticut River."
The line of low water mark thus specified was further defined as "the point to which the river recedes at its lowest stage without reference to extreme droughts," and no exception has been taken to this definition.
...
289 U. S. 607
The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under
289 U. S. 608
the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.

On a side note, since you are apparently brand new to Free Republic, I'll give you one pass (only) for misappropriate use of the N-word -- "Nazi".
By long standing Free Republic tradition & acknowledged rule, the word "Nazi", when used outside actual historical contexts, implies:

The user admits losing the argument and now has only insults to hurl.
The user was educated, trained or brainwashed by politically correct liberals in how to shut down arguments when all else fails.
The user has nothing serious going on between his ears.
The user is not worthy of participating in Free Republic threads.

[...]
Now you've been warned about using the N-word inappropriately on Free Republic.
If your weak brain cannot control its innate urges to act like a woke-liberal, calling whatever you disagree with "Nazi", your welcome here will quickly expire.
[...]

woodpusher: "I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support.
You complain that the quotes are unidentified.
The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal."

And with such total BS words you expose your true nature as a propagandist & liar.
Apparently, there's nothing serious going on between your ears.

I shall repeat the quotes I supported and quotes YOU SUPPORTED, and identify the quotes YOU SUPPORTED. Considering the unsupported, and unsupportable, nonsense you have directed at me, you doth protest too much.

I supported:

Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

The first was by Congressman Abraham Lincoln, on January 12, 1848, arguing the unlawfulness of the War with Mexico, Collected Works, Vol 1, page 438.

The second sage quote was identified as President Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Maximus, a great Conservative, and is from his First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981.

And now for the crazy quotes you support and which your views echo.

Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:

[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
[2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.

[1] and [3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Uncensored Version, The Ford Translation, ISBN 978-0-9845361-3-9, p. 460

[2] and [4] President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.

It's not my fault that you practically plagiarized Adolf Hitler.

Congress did not create the sovereign states. As Ronald Reagan said, "All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government."